Change Is Not Reform
Coolidge understood that “change” from a benign, small government to a more active and intrusive one would be damning to freedom. Thus he said: “There is no justification for public interference with purely private concerns.” He also understood that democracy tended toward collectivism, which in turn tended toward liberty’s demise: “Liberty is not collective, it is personal. All liberty is individual liberty.”
Two decades before being elected to his first term, Reagan fired preemptive strikes against this same deadly “change” by fighting to keep government in its place when Medicare was being established in this country.
As the program was being pushed through Congress in 1961, Reagan feared that the citizens who embraced it were unknowingly embracing socialism cloaked in liberal, egalitarian promises. He demonstrated this by highlighting the fact that proponents of Medicare were “[disguising the] medical program as a humanitarian project.”
If it were compatible with freedom, why did it have to be disguised?
In a recorded message aimed at turning the tide against what he had labeled “socialized medicine,” Reagan warned: “One of the traditional methods of imposing statism or socialism on a people has been by way of medicine.” In other words, Reagan recognized that subsidized health coverage for the elderly was not “change” for the better, because the taxation to fund it would both grow government and limit freedom.
Reagan’s efforts notwithstanding, Medicare was launched in 1965. And although many people now dependent on it may reject Reagan’s warnings as a bit extreme, they cannot question the fact that Medicare was at least a baby step toward the socialism he loathed. This was made clear when Medicare Part D was signed into law on December 8, 2003, under President George W. Bush. This newest medical entitlement, which was “the largest expansion of Medicare since [it] was created,” broadened the program so that it covers prescription drugs in addition to the hospital stays and doctor visits already covered under Medicare Parts A & B.
While Bush didn’t label Medicare Part D a “humanitarian project,” he certainly did describe subsidizing prescription drugs for seniors as “compassionate.”
Now, President Obama wants to spread the compassion around even further with health care reform that flows from his campaign for “change.” But this begs a question. If “change [was] not reform” when it meant growing government at the expense of freedom in prior decades and centuries, why should we believe such “change” is suddenly going to lead to reform in 2009?
Hope and Change. At the end of four years of Obama, you will be left with no hope and a little loose change in your pockets. I just find it stunning how naive Americans can be. Obama never held any executive position and he never ran anything, not a business, a town, a city, or a state. He ran nothing in his whole life and he was in the Senate for less than two years, yet this guy was qualified to be president of the United States. Shows you that in today’s media society, anybody can be packaged and sold to the public, just like tires or toothpaste. How pathetic. For those of you who disagree, how’s that economy and unemployment working out for you these days? And don’t even think about blaming this on Bush, because he never even came close to spending the amounts of money Obama, Pelosi, and Reid are spending (and just wait if this healthcare bill is passed and see what that does to our national budget). As for foreign policy? Well, I think Obama’s foreign policy can be summed up in the picture of him bowing, yes bowing, to the emperor of Japan. The once great United States is now groveling to everyone, including monarchs and dictators, around the world. Yup, that’s change you can believe in.
It seems likely to me that there will be some sort of health care bill [takeover] in 2010. Considering that, just what is needed to repeal that bill’s effects? This may be more than a single issue, since Obambi and company also intend to saddle us with taxes disguised as Cap and Trade as well as immegration reform in the form of amnesty for 12 million plus illegal aliens.
“Change” can be either positive or negative.
Perhaps when the next politican offers up a campaign slogan as vaporous as this one, America will have enough sense to ask which meaning of change is meant.
Thanks for the history. I always appreciate the background you provide.
The upshot of the sort of “change” sought by the Obama administration is the metastatic growth of government at the expense of individual liberty.
Your mention of Edmund Burke brought to mind this Thomas Sowell essay…
Burke and Obama
(Burke) also warned that “those who attempt to level, never equalise.” What they end up doing is concentrating power in their own hands — and Burke saw such new powers as dangerous, even if they were used only sparingly at first.
“Constitute government how you please, infinitely the greater part of it must depend upon the exercise of the powers which are left at large to the prudence and uprightness of ministers of state.”
This is a problem, given that we currently have very few actual statesmen (and women) in the national government and are, rather, saddled with a plethora of deal makers and tedious, self-serving manipulators.
The Republic can be killed through ignorance, too, such as a Nancy Pelosi determined to deliver a fiscal and liberty disaster in the form of a bill for “her” President.
“Change” is just liberal-speak for “we’re going to control every facet of your life.”
To “tanstaafl” – great quotes from Burke. The “change” Obama promises has been rejected by tax-paying citizens for the very reasons cited in your post – they do not want to be pulled down into poverty.
I believe it is all crumbling before Obama’s eyes. We see who we’ve elected and more and more people are unhappy about it. The change I long for is coming in 2010.
6. Jeff:
“Change” is just liberal-speak for “we’re going to control every facet of your life.”
Thanks Jeff. This blog just translated Obama-nomics for me. It’s “Chains you can believe in”.
Those chains are the chains of slavery to massive government control over the lives of the taxpayers. The bait is entitlement. Oh snap!
Obama is the final result of affirmitive action. A black man who has been given everything because of his race, including the Presidency. Yes he is a great speaker, but other than his tongue, his head is empty. So are the heads of those who voted for him. Stand by for the greatest backlash in American history. PC is dead!!!!
Gernot, President Obama is a terrible speaker without his teleprompter; otherwise, he speaks gibberish gobbledygook with enough “erss” & “um’s” to quickly fill a big jar. The man speaks eloquent jargon or pointless platitudes. In other words, Obama says nothing in as many words possible. Obama’s so-called talent can be seen in other newsreaders in the MSM. He is not a talented speaker since he would be able to recover & think on the fly without his script. Off script, Obama is a mess. Why? He does not believe any of the words he speaks…
Change is not necessarly progress.
Lincoln………
John Randolph, eh? He would be turning over in his grave if he knew that blacks and women can now (gasp) vote. If you never change, then you never make progress; that’s the other side of tis little history lesson.
And you know, Strom, we might be better off if you and your Dixiecrats had won, right?
Seriously, John Randolph? Might as well drag out Calhoun while you’re going through the crazy 19th century thing you’ve got going for you.
I hope they don’t pay you to write this nonsense.
Hitler and Stalin were into change, too… doesn’t make it good.
♪ mmm mmm mmm ♪ Welcome to Obamacare ♪ mmm mmm mmm ♪ Present!!! ♪ mmm mmm mmm ♪ Michelle has her own plan and it’s better than yours. ♪ mmm mmm mmm ♪ The congress has its own plan and you can’t have it! ♪ mmm mmm mmm ♪ Good luck! ♪ mmm mmm mmm ♪